Wednesday, July 27, 2011

This topic is one that will probably be very complicated to the non-scientific mind, as with my own. So I will not attempt too much shop talk here, only a basic overview. But, even those of us without a biotechnology degree, will understand the basic horrors of this new frontier.

American political science commentator Francis Fukuyama was once quoted as saying that "transhumanism" is the world's most dangerous idea. What is transhumanism? Well, in brief, it benignly began with the new technologies of prosthetics and implants, (innocent enough) but then led to cognitive enhancing drugs, genetic engineering, or neuro-implants to total artificial intelligence and augmented realities. Transhumanists boast that the newly engineered humans will enjoy a projected life-span of over 120 years with these new controversial technologies. But will it truly be human life .. or a sci-fi interpretation of humanity?

The recent movie, "Surrogates" depicts a futuristic society, in which humans use surrogate robotic clones of themselves, which they live through. The humans sit immobilized and hooked up to computerized controls of their robots, who navigate the outside world for their human agent. The humans can now live through a sort of virtual reality, with their robotic counter parts, who do not feel pain, or age, and are almost totally indestructible, doing all the work for them.

Transhumanism is not exactly like creating a robotic surrogate to navigate the outside world for people. It's more like the humans themselves will become the robots, with more and more technology taking over their physical entities. How will this come about?

Again, without getting too technical here, one method is the mixing of genes and or cells of animals with humans and vice-versa, in order to manipulate the human organism into a more designer type of being. Another, will be through cognitive enhancing drugs, genetic engineering, or neuro-implants that will further evolve this new ape. Artificial intelligence and augmented reality ... whatever that means ... is promised to be integrated into everyday behavior. But, how human will transhuman humans be?

In the movie "Splice" a scientist splices the genes of animals with humans, and creates a totally new creature, that is part human, part animal. ACHM is the acronym for animals containing human material. Mice with human-derived livers, goats with human blood cells, and other animals containing human genes or cells, are being argued as valuable tools in medical research. But how will such research be regulated, and by what or whose ethical guidelines?

The British Academy of Medical Sciences recommended that the U.K. government establish an expert commission to regulate certain types of these experiments with animals containing human material. But, apparently, the real motive of the author of the report, was that early public discussion of these controversial experiments, might encourage wider acceptance of such research, and diffuse any public aversion. "We are trying to get this issue out there before anything has happened," said geneticist Martin Bobrow of the University of Cambridge, who chaired the academy's working group. He went on to say, "If the public has heard something, they are less likely to get irritable when something does hit the headlines."

Really? Is that called, "breaking the news gently" - that we are about to be turned into a bunch of hybrid, humanoids? Even some of the regulations are a horror. One suggested regulation, was that human embryos mixed with non-human primates, not be allowed to develop beyond 14 days. Embryos that are "predominantly animal", however, containing only some human cells are presently unregulated in the United Kingdom. The report recommends closing that loophole. Really.

Of course, the beginnings of this brave new world, will naturally be in the area of human reproduction. Did you think it wouldn't? Children will be "planned", along with their entire genetic make-up. What genetic make-up are they referring to I wonder? Cat or mouse? IVF and surrogacy will become the norm for having children, with parents being required to apply for a license to have their little transhuman offspring.

The other boast of this new transhumanistic society, will be the "absolute right to bodily autonomy". We saw that one coming, didn't we. Drug usage would not be regulated. "Abortion, assisted suicide, voluntary amputation, gender reassignment, surrogate pregnancy, body modification, legal unions among adults of any number, and consenting sexual practices would be protected under law." What a brave new world!

Rights discourse will shift to personhood instead of common humanity. Of course they suggest a sliding scale of this new transhumanist personhood, based on "sentience, empathy, self awareness, tool use, (tool use?) problem solving, social behaviors, language use, and abstract reasoning." What end of the scale would you fit into?

By August 1 the federal government is likely to accept a medical panel’s advice that new health plans must fully cover all contraception, including sterilization and pills designed to cause abortions.Conscience protections previously promised in President Obama’s 2010 Executive Order have been omitted.Individuals and providers will be forced to pay for services they object to on moral, ethical or religious grounds.

President Obama’s Executive Order 13535 states that existing conscience protections, particularly regarding abortion, will apply to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.The panel’s recommendations also violate current conscience laws, the Church Amendment and the Hyde-Weldon Amendment.

The new health care law requires 100% coverage for standard preventive care, such as mammograms and colonoscopies.The panel’s idea to classify contraception as “preventive medicine,” causes all related drugs having FDA approval, such as abortion pills Ella, Plan B and RU486, to be included.

The report has set off a fierce debate, with outraged reactions from conservative and religious groups.Jeanne Monahan, director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, said that “including drugs such as Ella essentially would mandate coverage for abortion” despite President Obama’s promise.Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops said, “The cost of these practices will be paid by all who participate in health coverage, employers and employees alike, including those who conscientiously object.”

“Pregnancy is not a disease, and fertility is not a pathological condition to be suppressed,” said Deirdre McQuade, spokeswoman for the bishops’ Pro-Life Secretariat.“But the Institute of Medicine report treats them as such.”

Former St. Louis University professor Donald Critchlow, who has written on birth control policy, also disagrees with the recommendations.“Private insurers should have discretion in deciding what they want to cover,” he said.

These new recommendations would forbid co-payments.Dr. Linda Rosenstock, chair of the panel, admitted that “We did not consider cost or cost-effectiveness in our deliberations.”Yet, the panel’s report says that “contraception is highly cost-effective.”

One panel member, Professor Anthony LoSasso, a health economist at the University of Illinois at Chicago, filed a dissent, saying the committee did not have enough time to conduct “a serious and systematic review” of the evidence.He said the report includes “a mix of objective and subjective determinations filtered through a lens of advocacy.”

Cardinal DiNardo also notes that the panel’s report favored mandatory coverage of surgical abortions and would have included them in their recommendations had it not been against the law.He said, “I can only conclude that there is an ideology at work in these recommendations that goes beyond any objective assessment of the health of women and children.”

Lake County Right to Life urges HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to reject the panel’s recommendations.In addition, Lake County Right to Life urges Congress to pass the “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act” (HR 1179) to protect millions from being forced to violate deeply held moral and religious convictions.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Peter Seller's famous character, The Pink Panther has nothing on today's CIA intelligence savvy. He would have never thought of this one. Immunizations to catch a terrorist? Of course they didn't have DNA profiling in the pink panther's time. But even if they did, would the panther have breached medical ethics to catch the bad guy? Let's see what you think ...

The United States CIA engineered a fake hepatitis B vaccination campaign in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad. Why was Abbottabad chosen for this medical fiasco? Bin Laden, had avoided capture for approximately 10 years. What does it take to catch a thief? Well, according to the CIA, it takes a vaccine to catch a terrorist. The fake vaccine campaign was a ruse, to supposedly obtain DNA from Bin Laden's children, in order to confirm that the terrorist was living in a suspicious compound in Abbottabad.

The operation was run by Pakistani Dr. Shakil Afridi, who has since been arrested by the Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI), for co-operating with American intelligence agents. His undercover job, as pink panther operative, was to send a nurse into the Bin Laden compound, with medical supplies, in the hopes of getting DNA from one of Bin Laden's children, in order to ascertain whether the notorious terrorists was in fact residing there.

The breach of medical ethics, that Peter Seller's panther would have never conjured up in his wildest espionage dreams, was the fake vaccine campaign. I mean, these people were lied to! This is what the medical profession stands for? What happened to doctor patient trust? Worse than that, this has further strained relations between the United States and not only the Pakistan government, but all Muslim nations.

Doctors Without Borders, who serve in Third World countries, are outraged! They called the scheme, "a dangerous abuse of medical care". Their international president, Unni Karunakara, said in a statement, "The mere suggestion that the provision of medical care was carried out under false pretenses damages public perception of the true purpose of medical action. With all populations in crisis, it is challenging enough for health agencies and humanitarian aid workers to gain access to, and the trust of, communities -- especially populations already skeptical of the motives of any outside assistance."

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

On April 30, The Food and Drug Administration quietly released a new report about deaths and injuries from the abortion drug RU 486.The Obama administration has done nothing to make the information available to women.

RU 486 (mifepristone) was approved during the Clinton administration.The FDA released a previous report in 2006 showing that more than 1100 women had experienced adverse effects.The FDA’s new report comes in the wake of evidence of deaths and injuries worldwide.

The new report reveals that 14 women in the United States have died from RU 486 and 2,207 have been injured.Over 600 women required hospitalization, 339 hemorrhaged enough to require a transfusion, 256 experienced infections, and 48 contracted serious infections likely to be life threatening.Women developed endometritis, pelvic inflammatory disease, and pelvic infections with sepsis (a serious systemic infection that has spread beyond the reproductive organs).

RU 486 has been marketed as simple and painless, but this is dangerously misleading.The drug suppresses a woman’s immune system.Further, this drug was prescribed to at least 58 women with ectopic pregnancies.Taking RU 486 with an ectopic pregnancy can cause death.

A recent Australian Health Department audit found RU 486 to be less safe than surgery, with 1 in 18 women using it needing to be hospitalized.The audit also found that one-third of women using RU 486 in the second trimester required surgery.

Lake County Right to Life believes that abortion drugs like RU 486 are not about improving women’s health but about advancing a pro-abortion political agenda

Thursday, July 14, 2011

In the old days, you were dead when your heart stopped beating and you stopped breathing. This was called biological death. And that definition remains today, but has been expanded to include “irreversible” cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem … ie … brain death. This definition came about through the legislative passage of the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA).The UDDA had a fundamental purpose; the statutory recognition of the concept that the death of the brain is equivalent to the death of the person. The UDDA was formulated by representatives of the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and was ultimately adopted by all 50 states. The reason that the UDDA was accepted by all states was the need to obtain vital organs from “living” human beings. Because these organs need to be taken while the donor still has a beating heart, adequate blood pressure and good urine output, a living body is turned into a corpse by biological reasons – not by declarations or legislation.

People are free to express their opinions. The freedom to speculate about brain-death, however, does not convey the freedom to act. The professionals, who advocate brain-death as death, should establish their position with moral certitude. After all, the first rule in medicine is, Do No Harm; followed by the precept, that if medicine is to err, it must always err on the side of Life. And we do not know with certitude, the borderline between life and death, and a definition cannot substitute for knowledge. Furthermore, the condition of the body after someone has died is different from the clinical condition after a declaration of “brain-death”, which is based on “alleged” absence of all functioning of the brain. The brain dead patient does not look like a cadaver. He still breathes, albeit with the help of a ventilator. His color and blood pressure are normal. Still he is considered “legally” dead and is kept on artificial life-support, in order to preserve the health of the desired organs.

Legal criteria for determining brain–death vary from state to state. It is basically a clinical diagnosis with varying geographical protocols. Some physicians, who are opposed to brain–death as death of a person, say the criteria used to determine brain–death are contradictory.

So, to bring this topic to a logical conclusion; it is impossible to remove vital organs from a corpse and successfully use those organs for transplantation to a living person. So, the popular acceptance of brain-death is based on the supposition that a brain–dead patient might remain indefinitely on life support. Dr. Paul Bryne answers this fear, “If the brain has truly ceased to function, the heart will soon be affected. While a functioning brain is not strictly necessary, in order for the heart to continue beating, without the aid of the brain stem, the heart will be at a much slower rate than normal, and blood pressure will quickly drop. So, if death has truly occurred, it will soon be apparent. The heart cannot do its’ thing for any great length of time without the other parts of the body”

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Today's report on societal schizophrenia, which is becoming a never ending story, is about the habit of today's society using contradicting terms. They think we don't know what words mean ... and perhaps some don't. So here we go with today's illogic.

We read today, that the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) quietly released a new report about the deaths and injuries to women from the abortion drug RU486. The key word is "quietly", since the Obama Administration has done absolutely nothing to publicize or make available the dangers of RU486, to women; because that might reveal the contradiction in terms of the abortion mind-set. The elementary school level word we refer to here is "safe". Abortion proponents constantly say, that "abortion should be "safe" .. legal and "rare". This is their mantra. So let's look up our old friend Webster and see what he has to say about the meaning of the word "safe".

Safe: 1.a) free from damage, danger, or injury; secure. b.) having escaped danger or injury; unharmed. 2. a) giving protection. b.) involving no risks and c.) trustworthy. Ok now .. let's see what the FDA reported about RU486, and if it fits Webster's description.

The FDA reports that 14 women in the United States alone have died from using RU486, and 2,207 women were injured. How safe is that? Which definition of the word "safe" would you pick? This is in our own highly developed country. I shudder to think what it has done in underdeveloped, poorer countries, where perhaps Webster's Dictionary does not exist. Of course, one wonders if anyone in the United States studies it. Certainly abortion proponents don't read it, or they would know how contradictory their arguments about abortion being "safe" really are. Or do they?

Commenting on the report, Jeanne Monahan of the Family Research Council said, "Marketing the abortion drug as simple and painless, such as taking an aspirin, is dangerously misleading to women." Hmmm ... does misleading marketing tactics reflect Webster's definition of the word "safe"? She also goes on to prove our other point regarding underdeveloped poorer countries by stating, " It is not only women in the US who are suffering, as a result of chemical abortion, it is a world-wide trend."

Now the Australian Health Dept chimes in after their audit of 10,000 abortions performed in 2009 - 2010, where they compared the "safety" of RU486 with surgical abortions. The outcome being, in the words of one major media outlet, "The Abortion Pill Less "Safe" than Surgery." Jeanne Monahan of the Family Research Council stated, "The Australian report showed that 1 in 18 women, who used RU486 had to be readmitted to hospitals (a total of 5.7% of women vs. only .4% of surgical abortions.) The same study revealed that as many as 33% of women who had second trimester RU486 abortions required some form of surgical intervention." Hmmmmm. How safe is that? Websters #2 definition of "safe" is "giving protection and involving no risks".

Everyone in American knows, that in baseball, when the umpire calls "safe", the player is not out, and has contributed to the advancement of his team. So the constant use of this same word, by the radical pro-aborts, is a contradiction in terms, when referring to abortion. When women are dying and being injured, the pro-abort umpire has made a bad call by saying the woman is "safe", using abortion; chemical or otherwise. This is not only societal schizophrenia, but societal illiteracy. Or is it deliberate? I think it's deliberate.

So why don't women see the contradiction? It's the old "bait and switch" tactic used by savvy salesmen for millenia. It refers to the seduction of a potential sucker, by using one lure, then the salesman switches things on the sucker, who doesn't get what he bargained for. Women are continually being lured with the lie, that it is back-alley abortions that are not "safe", while, legal abortions are. Then the switch comes with deaths and injuries. Until this "quiet" FDA report, that the Obama Administration has done nothing to make available to women, finally reveals the switch.

Friday, July 8, 2011

President Obama adds to the definition of societal schizophrenia, today, with this latest news. In Texas, a convicted murder/rapist, on death row was denied a Supreme Court review of his case, which finally exhausted his 16 yrs. of appeals and free legal counsel. So the execution took place yesterday, July 7th, 2011, because Texas still has the death penalty. But, President Obama and the United Nations, had appealed to reduce the death penalty sentence to life in prison, along with the cooperation of most of the major media.

Now, the schizophrenia once again comes to mind. While President Obama gave the order to "take out" Osama Bin Laden, with no trial, no jury and certainly no appeals, he appealed for clemency in the case of a murder/rapist, who raped and brutally murdered a 16 yr. old girl. So where is the consistency here, in President Obama's judgments?

The more glaring schizophrenic double standard to all this is, that President Obama is the most pro-abortion president ever; with a long record of supporting abortion, even before his presidency. He voted against the Partial-Birth abortion Ban and BIAPA (Born Alive Infant Protection Act), as an Illinois Senator, even before his elevation to the White House. His ruthless lack of mercy toward the innocent unborn is in stark contrast to his benevolent appeal on behalf of a murderous monster on death row.

So, now, yesterday, on Michael Savage's radio-talk show, he took calls only from people opposed to the death penalty, in order to poll their reasoning. The question presented to his audience was, why are you opposed to the death penalty. Though all responses varied, the main consensus was still, nevertheless, opposition to the death penalty. Michael Savage then presented the issue of Osama Bin Laden to his anti-death penalty audience. Here the answers deviated somewhat from the audience's expressed opposition to the death penalty, in that many felt the killing of Osama Bin Laden was justified. With typical societal schizophrenic double standard reasoning, the audience was unable to explain this. Duh! How do we explain such disparity in judgment?

To think, that our president condones a life sentence for a brutal murder/rapist, while at the same time, he uses the full power of the presidency to condone the death penalty of millions of "innocent" unborn children; this severe double standard certainly borders on schizophrenic reasoning, with no consistent logical reason.

A postscript to this story ... The mother of the 16 yr. old girl, who was brutally and viciously raped and murdered, declined to comment on President Obama's attempt to intervene on behalf of her daughter's murderer, and simply said, "now at last my daughter has justice".

Thursday, July 7, 2011

The case of Casey Anthony, who was charged and subsequently found not guilty of murdering her 2 yr. old daughter, is all over the air ways. Aside from the national media coverage, people are expressing opinions on twitter and facebook, and in everyday conversation, and everyone has an opinion. The overwhelming reaction is one of outrage, disgust and horror, over the case of this innocent toddler's life being ended, on top of the fact, that now, no one is being held accountable.

From the first posts of outrage on facebook, I responded that the murder of millions of innocent children inside the womb, is just one small step to murdering them outside the womb. And here is the most duplicitous aspect of all. Had Casey Anthony walked into an abortion clinic when she was 9 months pregnant - she could have legally killed her child - in a most horrific fashion - and there would be no public outrage.

Now, Rush Limbaugh has echoed my own sentiments as well, stating, "If the child had died, what, two years earlier in the womb, this woman would be a star. She'd be a hero. And folks, I don't think that is a cliche to say. And I don't think it is a cheap attempt at humor." What is this duplicity in our society, which can express such outrage over a 2 yr. old child's death, while at the same time turning a blind eye to the millions of butchered and dismembered unborn children, who are aborted everyday, with the full backing of our legal system?

Abortion is the cause-celeb of the women's movement. It is celebrated as a 'woman's right' to be able to "choose" whether or not her child should live. Why is it that there can be such a huge public outcry ... as there should be ... over the maleficent death of a 2 yr. old child ... while people "choose"' to look the other way, when it comes to the millions of innocents lives, murdered off in abortion clinics across the country? Why is it, that people can say abortion is abhorrent ... while not wanting to interfere with a woman's right to "choose" abortion?

We have all seen the darling picture of Casey Anthony's precious little girl ... and it tugs at our hearts, and our moral outrage. Then, why are we so blind to the child in the womb? Why are these millions of precious children, not able to evoke the same sympathy, as Casey Anthony's daughter? These are the millions of murdered children, whose portraits we will never see, because no one considered them valuable enough to even look at.

A few years ago, a similar public outcry was raised over Susan Smith, the infamous mother who drove her two small children into a lake. People placed flowers and wreaths in memorium at the edge of the lake, for the two innocents who had met such a tragic end, at the hands of their own mother. Images of people sobbing over the little boys, understandably so, were seen everywhere on television and in magazines. But, at the same time, why is it, that there are no mourners at the sights of abortion clinics across our country, save for the handful of "extremists", as they are dubbed by pro-abortion advocates, who stand outside of these abortuaries and pray?

Who places flowers and wreaths outside the abortuaries across our nation, as the people did for Susan Smith's little boys? And, who will leave their porch lights on, in honor of the millions of little ones killed in abortuaries, across our nation, as we did for Casey Anthony's little girl?

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

This is simply a layman's view of our society's rapid descent into madness. It is not intended to offend anyone who actually suffers from a clinical diagnosis of any mental disorder. Rather it is an overview of a society's deliberate choice to split from reality and reason and separate our thought processes from our emotions. Allowing our emotions to override our powers of reason can lead a society into a collective madness. I ask, who is pushing our emotional buttons and short circuiting our powers of reason ... and why are they doing it?

Case in point ... reading a local paper, I became thoroughly incensed over the news coverage of recent 4th of July festivities. Consider, instead of some reference to our Founding Fathers, and those who gave their lives in the American Revolution, I read about a chicken wing eating contest. Imagine consuming 2.4 lbs. of chicken in 15 minutes, as our champion of the competition did. His competitor, for the first time in the event's history vomited up his wings, in full view of the public. Three large pictures of the "King of Wings" competition, accompany the revolting article. Talk about separating emotions from the reason. The hysterical glee of watching people glut themselves to the point of puking, is assuredly a short circuit of our higher powers. Where was a picture of Lexington and Concord? Or at least, Paul Revere, or even his horse?

Then I discover, that only 1 out of 4 people, even know why we celebrate the 4th of July in the first place! But, anybody young enough, or dumb enough, who watched this disgraceful display of gluttony, will simply walk away with the idea that the holiday is all about mindless revelry, with no sense of the importance of what it is we are celebrating. It is all too reminiscent of the Roman orgies of ancient times, where people glutted themselves into depravity.

Now, I am not complaining about good clean fun and celebration ... but is this how we honor those who gave their lives for our independence in the Revolutionary war? The 4th of July remembers the birth of our nation. A birth purchased with the lives of those who fought for our independence. What would their ghosts feel about such celebrations, if they could return? Men such as Nathan Hale, whose famous last words before being executed by the British, were, "I regret that I have but one life to give my country." Is this type of moronic behavior how he would want his sacrifice to be remembered? What would George Washington, and those who crossed the Delaware river with him, think? As well as all the many others, who sacrificed themselves to create a nation out of a wilderness, and what they might feel? Do displays such as this chicken wing gluttony, honor these men, and the privilege of being born in our great nation? Is this how we give thanks?

The next slip into schizophrenia, was an article about gambling. A casino is due to be placed some where in Lake County. The article states that the "anti-gambling activist" have concerns about placing a casino near the Great Lakes Naval Training Station. "Anti-gambling activists"? Why is it that anyone who tries to have common sense, or uses their natural powers of reason, to determine the efficacy of something, are immediately plugged as "anti"? This goes hand in hand with the pro-life movement being labeled "anti"-choice. In other words, anyone who is for morality, virtue, or even common sense is Anti? While those who are depraved and irrational are Pro? Linguistics gymnastics at its best. So one of the "pro-gambling" Waukegan Senators and architect of the casino plan states, "They're under the age of 21 to start with, and The rest are adults who can be trusted to make responsible decisions about gambling." Really? Are these the same responsible adults who choke down 2.4 lbs. of chicken in 15 minutes, accompanied by public vomiting? No mention, anywhere in the article about the casino, or the real danger, that gambling casinos bring. Only that those who have concerns are "anti-gambling".

Now, over the weekend, I hear, the National Education Association, (NEA) has endorsed President Obama for the 2012 presidential election, while 1 in 4 do not know the reason we celebrate the 4th of July. I thought the Revolutionary war was taught in the school system. But when the NEA endorses a candidate such as President Obama, it all falls into place, and the schizophrenic rationale begins to reveal itself. Apparently they're teaching more about diversity, rather than actual American History.

The next schizophrenic headline in the news was titled, "Is Risk In The Womb?" The article is about the increased risk of Autism in twins, both identical and fraternal. Now the separation of emotion from human reason really sets in. The title, "Is Risk In the Womb" is a very poor way to phrase the problem of autism in twins. Or is it a clever choice of words, deliberately aimed at provoking the emotions of expectant women? Couldn't they have simply titled the article, "A New Study of Autism Risk in Twins," rather than making the womb an enemy. The article goes on to report possible causes, though not trying to determine what the specific risks might be. Rather the title simply makes the woman's womb the major culprit. It raises a fear for pregnant women, that her own womb might be the main threat to her child, rather than determine what actual scientific factors might really be involved. It is a title designed to instill fear, pure and simple.

Now I ask, how much of this is stupidity, or a form of social schizophrenia, or an actual agenda, which our modern schizophrenic society is swallowing, at the same rate our King of Wings champion swallowed 2.4 lbs of chicken wings. Put your thinking caps on people.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive". How often I would hear my mother use this expression when I was a child. Phrases like this always left huge impressions upon me, and usually proved frighteningly true. Today I would slightly change the last part of this sentence to read, "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice evil." This very accurately and sadly describes today's world, where it would seem that all natural and moral laws of God have been cast aside, in favor of an "anything goes" lifestyle. A world where convenience and entitlement rule the day ... where mankind sees himself as taking the place of the Creator .. who can manipulate everything and anything in order to satisfy his wants.

Some of these manipulations may appear, on the surface, to be noble, in that they seek to relieve or correct some form of human suffering or lack. In that light, In-Vitro-Fertilization (IVF), has seemed, for many couples facing infertility problems, a miracle of modern science. As a mother of 5 children myself, I have never been faced with this particular heartache, and as such, make no attempt here to judge others, who were or are, faced with this dilemma. Still, every human being who walks this earth, myself included, have or will, face at one point in life, a disappointment or loss of some type. And I hold with earlier generations, who believed that one dealt with life's sufferings and disappointments ... at least to the extent that none of them would ever consider doing something immoral or unethical to alleviate their suffering. Today all that has changed ... which brings to mind another statement of my mother's, which became a guidepost for me, "You have to play your hand with the cards life deals you." But today the deck is being re-shuffled ... and with frightening results. And IVF, the answer to many a couple's dream of having children, has created a whole new deck and a whole new game. Now, this new deck which science is playing with, has created as many as half a million frozen IVF embryos in fertility clinics across the United States alone. These are the 'left-over' embryos, who were not needed once the woman was successfully impregnated, and are then left in cryopreservation, as so much over-stock.

Oh what a tangled web? Now the question is ... what do we do with these little lives, frozen in suspended animation? Is Embryo adoption the answer? And what does the Catholic Church have to say on the subject? Well, the deck has been shuffled so quickly over the past 40 or 50 years, that even the Church has had to try and catch it's breath in trying to keep up! Catholic theologians, debating the issue, have fallen into different camps ... those who believe IVF is immoral - and as such think that embryo adoption would simply be an immoral answer to an immoral problem - to those who believe IVF is moral - to those who feel that though IVF itself is immoral, the rescue of the innocent victims is ... well perhaps, let's say, a necessary evil?

Now, here is the present statement by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on the matter: "Embryo adoption - the document does not reject the practice outright, but warns of medical, psychological and legal problems associated with it and underscores the moral wrong of producing and freezing embryos in the first place."

So, without further ado, I will give my own humble opinion on the subject. To begin with, IVF is an abomination ... completely and totally immoral and unethical .. and a Frankenstein answer to the heartache of couples who suffer infertility ... and I am totally in agreement with the Catholic Church's stance against the practice of creating life outside the marital act, and outside the womb. But as far as the poor little souls who already exist in cryospace .. I would suggest that, there are many times when evil forces good men to drastic measures. War is an abomination ... yet the Catholic Church uses a term: "the just war theory",which recognizes that there are times when good men must engage in the abominable in order to fight evil - especially when it involves the rescue of innocent victims of evil, such as the victims of the Holocaust in World War II. The little innocent victims of IVF, who are frozen like so many little snowflakes, are today's victims of evil. "Snowflakes", by the way, is the name of an adoption program by Nightlight Christian Adoptions, that exists specifically for the adoption of "surplus" IVF embryos. Would this encourage complacency of the immoral process of IVF? Perhaps. Does going to war encourage complacency of it? Sometimes. Yet the reality of our world is, that there will always be evil in every generation, which must be opposed - possibly by going to war - or other drastic measures.

If the pro-life argument is that, "life begins at conception and every life is sacred" ... then how can we discount the little snowflake souls? The pro-life argument about a child conceived in rape, not being aborted, is that "the child should not pay for the sins of the father". Well then ... why should the little snowflakes pay for the sins of their foolish parents, who conceived them in such an abysmal way, and have now abandoned them as so much overstock in a store? If there is such a thing as a "just war" as the Church puts it .. even though war itself is an abomination ... then could there not be a "just rescue" of these little souls who are trapped in cryopreservation? Or ... should we simply thaw them out and let them die ... as some suggest? Or could some good intentioned married women possibly look upon their wombs as life-rafts to rescue these little innocent victims of this modern holocaust? To be sure ... there is no easy answer here. But I suggest we need to pray really hard to come up with something ... for while we sit around and debate, innocent souls are trapped in a frozen limbo, like so many snowflakes. And as science teaches us ... every single snowflake is a "one of a kind". Each of these little snowflake embryos is a unique one of a kind soul ... loved by God. This is not how He intended them to be created and then just left to die. What say you?